Vision-language Models (VLMs) have emerged as general-purpose tools for addressing a variety of complex computer vision problems. Such models have been shown to be highly capable, but, at the same time, lacking some basic visual understanding skills. In this paper, we set out to understand the limitations of SoTA VLMs on fundamental visual tasks (object classification, spatial understanding, and ability to delineate individual object instances through counting), by constructing a series of tests that probe which components of design, specifically, may be lacking. Importantly, we go significantly beyond the current benchmarks, which simply measure the final performance of VLM response, by also comparing and contrasting it to the performance of probes trained directly on features obtained from the visual encoder, intermediate vision-language projection and LLM-decoder output. In doing so, we uncover shortcomings in VLMs and make a number of important observations about their capabilities, robustness and how they process visual information. We hope our insights will guide progress in further improving VLMs.

Charts are a crucial visual medium for communicating and representing information. While Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have made progress on chart question answering (CQA), the task remains challenging, particularly when models attend to irrelevant regions of the chart. In this work, we present ChartGaze, a new eye-tracking dataset that captures human gaze patterns during chart reasoning tasks. Through a systematic comparison of human and model attention, we find that LVLMs often diverge from human gaze, leading to reduced interpretability and accuracy. To address this, we propose a gaze-guided attention refinement that aligns image-text attention with human fixations. Our approach improves both answer accuracy and attention alignment, yielding gains of up to 2.56 percentage points across multiple models. These results demonstrate the promise of incorporating human gaze to enhance both the reasoning quality and interpretability of chart-focused LVLMs.

With the advent of LLMs and variants, a flurry of research has emerged, analyzing the performance of such models across an array of tasks. While most studies focus on evaluating the capabilities of state-of-the-art (SoTA) Vision Language Models (VLMs) through task accuracy (e.g., visual question answering, grounding), our work explores the related but complementary aspect of consistency – the ability of a VLM to produce semantically similar or identical responses to semantically similar queries. We note that consistency is a fundamental prerequisite (necessary but not sufficient condition) for robustness and trust in VLMs. Armed with this perspective, we propose the MM-Rbenchmark, which allows us to analyze performance, in terms of consistency and accuracy, of SoTA VLMs on three tasks: Question Rephrasing, Image Restyling, and Context Reasoning. Our analysis reveals that consistency does not always align with accuracy, indicating that models with higher accuracy are not necessarily more consistent, and vice versa. Furthermore, we propose a simple yet effective mitigation strategy in the form of an adapter module trained to minimize inconsistency across prompts. With our proposed strategy, we are able to achieve absolute improvements of 5.7% and 12.5%, on average on widely used VLMs such as BLIP-2 and LLaVa 1.5M in terms of consistency over their existing counterparts.

The biases exhibited by text-to-image (TTI) models are often treated as independent, though in reality, they may be deeply interrelated. Addressing bias along one dimension—such as ethnicity or age—can inadvertently affect another, like gender, either mitigating or exacerbating existing disparities. Understanding these interdependencies is crucial for designing fairer generative models, yet measuring such effects quantitatively remains a challenge. To address this, we introduce BiasConnect, a novel tool for analyzing and quantifying bias interactions in TTI models. BiasConnect uses counterfactual interventions along different bias axes to reveal the underlying structure of these interactions and estimates the effect of mitigating one bias axis on another. These estimates show strong correlation (+0.65) with observed post-mitigation outcomes.Building on BiasConnect, we propose InterMit, an intersectional bias mitigation algorithm guided by user-defined target distributions and priority weights. InterMit achieves lower bias (0.33 vs. 0.52) with fewer mitigation steps (2.38 vs. 3.15 average steps), and yields superior image quality compared to traditional techniques. Although our implementation is training-free, InterMit is modular and can be integrated with many existing debiasing approaches for TTI models, making it a flexible and extensible solution.